4.5 Article

Electromyography evaluation of masseter and temporalis, bite force, and quality of life in elderly patients during the adaptation of mandibular implant-supported overdentures

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 E169-E174

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12980

关键词

complete dentures; dental implants; electromyography; prostheses and implants; questionnaires

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of the installation of two implant-supported overdentures until such treatment is complete. Although this treatment is well established in the literature, there are no studies comparing what happens to muscles and the quality of life (QoL) of patients during the treatment. MethodsWe selected 13 completely edentulous patients, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, to rehabilitate with mandibular overdentures retained by two dental implants and a complete denture as antagonists. We evaluated the efficacy of the treatment and its evolution in five steps: (i) initially, with the old complete dentures, (ii) after the implants' placement with the mandibular prosthesis relined, (iii) after the placement of the healing abutments, (iv) after the installation and adaptation of new prostheses, and (v) after a 3-month follow-up period. At each stage, we evaluated patients via temporal and masseter electromyography (EMG), molar and incisive bite force, and QoL. ResultsThe results for EMG found a decrease in muscle activity during rest, the mastication of raisins, and lateral movements when the overdentures were installed. For the bite force and QoL, there was a gradual improvement from the placement of the healing abutments period (P?0.05), which was sustained until the follow-up. ConclusionsComfort and stability improved during the treatment, demonstrated by the QoL and bite force results. These results are positive for elderly patients who might refuse an implant-supported overdenture due to treatment length.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据